New Meeting Location?

[Justin Dugger]

On Nov 10, 2007 6:18 PM, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins at tarcanfel.org> wrote:
> On Friday 09 November 2007 23:02:52 Billy Crook wrote:
> > Yeah, that's a good point.  You really don't want to shut out the youth.
>
> Yeah, cause, right now the meetings are just CRAWLING with kids, aren't they?

I haven't been to a meeting either. But primarily because it sounded
like the parking was a mess.
You can't declare there isn't a problem with the meeting location to
fix by polling people who
went.  They're already a self selected group.

> You people are fools.  Someone offers you a great place to have the meetings,
> for free, with excellent facilities, and all you can do is come up with
> objections without even having seen the place.  Oh dear, it's not
> commercially neutral.

I also don't see the problem with that.  If companies want to sponsor
meetings, it sounds fine to me,
as long as they're not turning the event into a promotional
opportunity for their company.  If the group
is popular / valuable enough to warrant multiple competing bids,
perhaps then one can talk about
perceived neutrality and sponsorship processes.  But for the moment
the choice appears to be
between a location that doesn't appreciate foreign hardware, doesn't
stay open late enough, a
restaurant that wants the group's business.

> Nobody says every meeting from now on has to be there. If there are actually
> people who don't like it, whether they've seen it or not, they don't have to
> come.
>

To put that more constructively:  perhaps a test run is in order?
Maybe hold a meeting at each place
and write down lessons learned.  If people like these each of places
enough perhaps a rotating
schedule could work.

Justin Dugger